> Reply to Mario Vaneechoutte:
>
> Your cake example is very nice! I agree with your definition of
> emergence. However, there is (at least) one difficult part in it:
> you need a definition of qualities. Who is determining qualities?
> If only humans determine qualities, then your emergence would be
> an anthropocentric notion. But if you consider qualities broader,
> then you have to define a non-human observer who determines
> qualities.
As I understand it, you assume that qualities only exist when they are
observed.Maybe there is confusion with value. I consider value as the
interpretation of the quality by an observer (a processor).
Maybe an exerpt of the manuscript I am preparing may explain what I
mean.
"Indeed, this definition of experience also enables us to propose
generally applicable definitions for 'quality' and 'value'. Quality
could be defined as the true fit, the true usefulness of a substrate for
a process. Value is the quality of a substrate as it is experien-ced by
a processor.
For example, the activity of DNA-polymerases (which pick nucleotides out
of the environment and incorporate these into an elongating
polynucleotide chain, taking an existing DNA-strand as the model) needs
correction by proof reading DNA-polymerases, since wrong nucleotides can
be built in. Correspondingly, DNA-polymerases can incorporate synthetic
nucleotides, which differ slightly from the natural ones, but which may
end the process of elongation. The above examples can be described as
the phenomenon whereby the true quality of a substrate for an ongoing
process is misvalued by a processor.
Animals must make such quality estimates all of the time (think of food
and partner choice) and other organisms try to influence this decision
making all of the time by for instance mimicry (for example poisonous
looking prey may be very nutritive, one may try to look better than one
is in an effort to attract what is the best possible partner according
to one's judgement, which itself may be fooled by tricks of the
potential partner.). Humans are even more confronted with the problem of
valuing the quality of a product. For instance, for a large series of
products with comparable quality (for example wash powders), commercials
try constantly to make us assign more value to some of these."
So, I consider quality as a truly existing property of matter, while
value is how it is interpreted by a processor (an enzyme, a cell, an
animal). E.g., when I misinterprete (assign the wrong value/properties)
to a poisonous substance, I certainly will experience the true quality
of the poison later on.
Some people claim that the world does not really exist when there is no
observer. Is it
possible that you are thinking in the same direction? That I disagree
should be clear from the above paragraph
> So we are back to biosemiotics (see my web pages at
> http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/welcome.html)
>
> I did not understand your transition from qualities and
> emergence to experience and awareness. Can you explain?
More correctly I would state that awareness is an experience which
emerges from the existence and combination of more simpler experiences
at the molecular and cellular level. The emergent qualities (properties)
of awareness - the combination of simpler experiences - than are
different from those of the simpler experiences.
(One of the problems in our understanding of what awareness - the
nonphysical - is about, is that to animals awareness is almost the only
kind of experience (besides dream experience) there is. So what we call
experience, is only a special case of experience, it is animal
experience as it becomes possible from the interaction of billions of
neurons, although we claim that it is the only experience. However, if
we manage to start using our terminology more broadly, we can come to
understand how many properties which we assign to humans or animals only
are in fact already present at the molecular level: experience, quality,
value, motivation, mood, interpretation, behaviour, ...
For instance, one can say that an enzyme interprets the environment,
since it is able to pick out only one substrate among many possible
ones. Also, an enzyme must be motivated to be active. This motivation
comes from external stimuli (the presence of the right substrates)
combined with internal tensions, which can be altered by co-enzymes or
by phosphorylation/dephosphorylation so that the enzyme is
activated/disactivated, i.e. put into the right mood.. Accordingly, for
animals, to undertake the activity of eating it is not sufficient that
the external stimulus (food) is present, we must be motivated (hungry)
to eat. And of course - being hungry - we can't eat when there is
nothing edible. The activity stems from combining internal and external
stimuli.
Mood then could be defined as the motivation to undertake a specific
kind of action (Cats can not be in the mood to catch a mouse, because
they are in the mood to sleep or in a mood to eat 'real' cat food or ...
(these different moods are determined by internal stimuli, hormonal in
nature). For enzymes there is only one kind of mood - on or off: they
stand at the basis of biological experience and make the difference with
anorganic chemistry).
Of course one can say that I use anthropomorphic reasoning because I use
terminology which so said only applies to humans (and/or animals).
However, I could argue just the same that someone accusing me of
anthropmorphism is him/herself anthropocentric. Haha!
> Personally, I view experience as Umwelt (after Uexkull), and
> awareness as a special kind of Umwelt that includes time,
> and hence, prediction or anticipation.
First, I should say that I did not find time to follow the Umwelt
discussions. So, my excuses if I missed things.
I may agree, but I can't be sure, since it is unclear to me in what
sense you use the term awareness. I argue that it is important to make
the distinction between awareness and reflexive awareness, whereby I
suggest to call only the latter consciousness, something which becomes
first possible by the availability of symbolic sounds (words). Again,
consciousness can be seen as a novel kind of experience which emerges
from the combination of aware experience with language. This combination
enables reflexive awareness (i.e. consciousness, as I would define it),
which is a completely new experience. In other words, consciousness is
the experience which follows from considering experience, as it becomes
possible by the use of language.So, when I am writing this I am an aware
being. When I am considering how funny it is that I am sitting here to
write this, I am a conscious being. Remark that humans, according to
this definition are aware beings most of the time, just like animals,
but that consciousness is a rare experience.
Since awareness and consciousness are normally used as synonymous, this
distinction is never made. Since I don't know whether or not you use
awareness as a synonym of reflexive awareness, I cannot know whether I
agree.
> -Alexei
> -------------------------------------------------
> Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
> Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
> Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
> Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html
Best regards
-- Mario.Vaneechoutte Department Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology & Immunology University Hospital De Pintelaan 185 9000 GENT Belgium Phone: +32 9 240 36 92 Fax: +32 9 240 36 59 E-mail: Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.beJ. Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission: http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/